Yeah I've said this on another forum but TC is my favourite analyst on CW and is my first port of call for anything Australian Cricket.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.

To take those numbers in isolation and not apply any context is beyond stupid. In the first innings of this series so far:
England bowled Australia out for 295 in 1st test (mainly due to a 6 wicket partnership)
570 in the 2nd test which was obviously a very poor performance (although not helped at all by drops on day 1)
385 in the 3rd test (not a great performance but not terrible really)
204 in 4th test

All in all those aren't horrific returns, but when the batsmen then get blown away in 52 (1st test), 68 (2nd test), 88 (3rd test) and 61 (4th test) and give up massive leads or hand opposition the advantage it is virtually impossible for the bowlers to do well given the position of the game. Printing out numbers and statistics in that situation is daft.

To take those numbers in isolation and not apply any context is beyond stupid. In the first innings of this series so far:
England bowled Australia out for 295 in 1st test (mainly due to a 6 wicket partnership)
570 in the 2nd test which was obviously a very poor performance (although not helped at all by drops on day 1)
385 in the 3rd test (not a great performance but not terrible really)
204 in 4th test

All in all those aren't horrific returns, but when the batsmen then get blown away in 52 (1st test), 68 (2nd test), 88 (3rd test) and 61 (4th test) and give up massive leads or hand opposition the advantage it is virtually impossible for the bowlers to do well given the position of the game. Printing out numbers and statistics in that situation is daft.

To win Test matches on a regular basis you need a bowling attack capable of getting 20 wickets on a regular basis.

England have taken 54 wickets in 4 Test matches and for far too many runs. It's that simple and that's what the bowling figure table clearly demonstrates.

Our bowlers figures aren't good but they are skewed by second innings batting from the Aussies with zero pressure after they've had no rest up. The comment that the problem is not the bowlers it is the batsmen stands true.......and anyone that understands cricket would get this.

Our bowlers figures aren't good but they are skewed by second innings batting from the Aussies with zero pressure after they've had no rest up. The comment that the problem is not the bowlers it is the batsmen stands true.......and anyone that understands cricket would get this.

The English bowling AND batting AND wicketkeeping AND fielding AND field placements are their problem!

But if they can't take 20 wickets they won't win too many Test matches. Particularly if the number of runs they pay for those wickets is excessive - as is the case in this series.

I am asking you because Australia couldn't take enough wickets, does that mean there bowlers were poor ? Or perhaps is it possible that because the batting had been so hopeless, the bowlers were so far behind the game it made bowling a thankless task which coupled with a lack of rest was in reality a better explanation for the figures.

I am asking you because Australia couldn't take enough wickets, does that mean there bowlers were poor ? Or perhaps is it possible that because the batting had been so hopeless, the bowlers were so far behind the game it made bowling a thankless task which coupled with a lack of rest was in reality a better explanation for the figures.

Yeah. Often 2nd innings bowling in these situations are entirely meaningless - as has been the case in basically all three Tests before this one (4th innings are never meaningless). The English bowling as a unit has done its job, their main problem has been their inability to dislodge Haddin and the tail.

Anderson-Broad-____ should still run rampant against most sides at home.